Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela  I don't think that's so. Plenty of people believe in the law of attraction, but don't believe in subjective reality, or that our consciousness wholly creates our reality. |
Angela, Daffy, ALG, et alii, I've given the subject some thought and this is my current take on it.
I'm not trying to score points or prove anyone wrong. I am trying to gain a deeper understanding of reality, and I am only inviting others to do the same - by asking questions of themselves, and not just blindly following some new age fad that comes along, because it sounds cool.
If there are no true LoA believers, then are there fake LoA believers, perhaps, i.e. those who superficially go along with it and chatter about synchros and manifesting blue feathers; those, who when asked a tricky question, say, 'Oh, read Steve's article, he can explain it a lot better than I can', when they, themselves, haven't the foggiest what Steve is on about?
Even ALG lamented that sad fact with regard to this forum, and he got his knuckles rapped for it by the LoA fairy, thought police.
If I wish for a better job and the next day, I am offered a better job, does that prove LoA works? There could be any number of reasons why I was offered the job. If you believe it was definitely LoA, and nothing else (even though you can offer no proof), then that, to me, reflects a blinkered, limited view, a view that excludes any other possibilities.
Next, how can some people equate LoA with a scientific law like the law of gravity?
A scientific law has a single, precise definition which can be consistently proven, over and over again, under a given set of conditions.
LoA is not a law.
There are as many definitions and opinions about it as there are people.
ALG has a whole cart-load of them (one for every occasion).
Can you demonstrate a test for LoA which is measurable, verifiable and which produces the same results over and over again, as one can with the law of gravity? I seriously doubt it, given that LoA is a subjective concept and therefore, by default, cannot be proven in objective reality.
If you follow SR, then, at night time, you believe the sun does not exist, since you do not see it or experience it, i.e. it is not within your consciousness.
However, where I am, it may be daytime, and I can see the sun quite plainly.
If you follow SR, then you believe there is only one consciousness that contains the whole of reality. So, how can the sun both exist and not exist within consciousness? It's either there or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. So, there is an innate flaw here.
You may then justify your SR model by saying, yes, there is only one consciousness which contains one reality, but there are also individual consciousnessess within consciousness, each with it's own unique perspective of reality.
Interesting.
Doesn't that model sound suspiciously like the traditional creator God one?
God (the one consciousness) created all universes (reality). God created us in his own image and likeness (offshoots/projections of consciousness) each with our own, unique selves (souls). We are eternal, spiritual beings (being creations/projections of God/consciousness).
I can go with that.